tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 30, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
proposal to replace the affordable care act. in the house benghazi's final report. good morning it's june 30. donald trump said the north isrican free trade agreement a catastrophe for american manufacturing jobs. he called the transpacific partnership a blow to the industry. many in the democratic party disagree. without these types of agreements we would all be poor. what do you think.
andjobs, our wealth factories to mexico and overseas. it has left their workers with hard apiut poverty and when subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the politicians have proven they do nothing. for years, they watch on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment. many of these areas have still never recovered, and never will unless i become president. the wall street journal
this morning editorial board disagrees with the republican nominee. donna trump terror party. the trade agenda would hurt american people and companies. his idea that tariffs are good for american growth. this is a tax levied at the border. it reduces the standard of living. april 2015 a study credits nafta
with helping manufacturing industries, especially the auto industry become more globally competitive that. by moving some low-wage jobs to mexico, carmakers maintain u.s. production. mr. trop expose the -- once a study citesthe same evidence that 40% of the contents of an courts from areco and 25% from canada u.s. origin. what is your view on trade deals? clear in tennessee, republican. go ahead. caller: i have a negative view on the trade deals. to thisimited exposure type of information. i have a comment on statistics in trade -- entree. when they put up the statistics about how many employees have
been hired they always say that is good for the american economy. talk to ani had to employee from comcast and to that conversation i found out they were located in columbia. comcast is here in america and ity employ this person -- goes in part of the statistics for saying that the jobs have america but the employee is located in another country. that is not helping our economy. host: who is your candidate for president? caller: i am voting for trop. -- donald trump. because i want change. i was a hillary clinton supporter for many years. after benghazi, i decided that i couldn't support her anymore. trump's standnald
on trade that also appeals to? again, i have limited knowledge about the trade deals, but based on what i have heard, yes, it is. that and the fact that i really boughthink that he's some of these companies. i think there is too much money involved in politics and the where the system is set up. the average person should have a shot at being able to run our country. when they start talking about people being qualified, he meets the qualifications as they are set. it's not just the wall street journal editorial, there are many that disagree with donald trump on trade. u.s. trade of -- chamber of commerce, who have supported free trade,
point and counterpoint on trade, responding to these three donald trump, hillary clinton and bernie sanders. donald trump responded on twitter to the u.s. chamber of commerce saying, for reasons only they can explain, the chamber wants to continue our bad tree deals rather than renegotiating and making them better. maryland, democrat. sean, good morning. what is your viewpoint entree? trade is a difficult subject. i don't think too much about that but it is obvious donald trump has ideas that are destructive for the economy. view, weral point of
have country in africa, people who are dying, -- poverty, disease and hunger. ,ot only is he abandoning them but that will be detrimental to the american economy as well. abandon going to workers in africa, -- , thatare you saying hillary clinton, if she becomes the president to push forward with trade deals? caller: she would have to be very careful with what she puts in the trade deals and who she trades with. advance ondefinitely
the good trade deals that we have had. -- ant too much of a expert on trade deals. if there are good things in these deals, we should definitely try to improve on them. the president made the argument for these trade deals. he is at a nafta summit originally, and he defended them. here is here -- his argument. business style job of an era when everybody was working in manufacturing jobs, and you didn't need a college degree, and is longish your work hard you could support a family and live a middle-class life. that is undermined far more by automation than it has been by outsourcing or the shift of jobs
to low income -- low-wage countries. industry is producing .s much steel as it ever was it needs 1/10 of the workers that it used to. this is why my pushback on both the left and the right when it comes to protectionism or is you arearguments right to be concerned about the trends, but what you are prescribing will not work. there is a better way of doing this. the better way of doing it is countries like ours that have high labor standards and high environmental standards, and strong protection of intellectual property and rule , we have to get out there and help to shape the rules so that they work for our workers
and our businesses. make the't, china will rules. they may not have the same regard for values that we care about. the president yesterday as he met with his fellow nafta leaders. holding ain also want trilateral news conference there. defending nafta and trade deals. he would like to see the transpacific partnership happen as well as both clinton and from have a chillier approach to trading towards china. .
millions of jobs across the region and across the region require the willingness of the u.s. to rely over whelming only on imports to supply american people from the clothing to the smartphones that they carry. it's all the more important for china to maintain a large trade surplus with the u.s. four years china has exported four times as much as it imports and it continues to do so. your view entree. gaithersburg maryland, good morning. trade deals are important. .e keep making had trade deals
they have hurt the american worker. i don't think any of the politicians take that into .onsideration right we need to make stronger trade deals. as far as whether or not donald trump can make a stronger trade deal, is yet to be seen. historically, our trade deals her american workers. this is from reuters. they put this out yesterday. a new study shows positive effect of top -- trade deals. a study at the request of congress found that the trade deals, including nafta and pass this central american countries and south korea, loses -- boost net employment in 2012 over levels that would have occurred realut them or they caused wages to be slightly higher, 3% in that same year.
only a slight boost. it boosted surplus or reducing deficits by 4.4 billion per country per year on average. so nafta which has been in place for many years. you are telling me that 2012 we had a net positive. , iaven't read the report can't speak intelligently to all of the data. many of the reports i come out manipulate the data in order to prove a point they are trying to make. i can tell you that the manufacturing in this country and having many members of my family loved them through that have been adversely affected. i think the net effect over time has been extremely negative.
if you take a small's national in time, -- a small snapshot in time, i agree that there are positive benefits for trade with other countries. we tend to put ourselves in the position that other countries exercise over what we are doing. we should be in the strongest position. we could stand alone if we had to. there are not many countries who could do that. you in a position of strange to leverage yourself a better deal. we are taking care of other people in other countries, but take care of our people at home first. if my family is starving, i'm not going to give my last life out to my neighbor who is also starving. host: if you and others want to learn more about the potential impact of transpacific
partnership to cato institute today at 9:00 a.m. is having an event with the u.s. trade havesentative and we will coverage of them on c-span3. they are talking about this trade deal and what it would mean for the economy. for those of you want to learn more turned into c-span3 at 9:00 a.m.. bobby, in rochelle, georgia, a democrat. go ahead. president obama trade deals. america would have been better than it is written now. hillary clinton has a better trade deal as a democrat. host: detroit, michigan, independent color. i'd like to say that they have been sponsoring free
trade for 40 or 50 years. the concept is great. but there is nothing free about a $508 billion trade deficit. those are concrete jobs that are lost in this country. it has been going on for four years, and we had an unholy alliance between u.s. national -- and multinational firms in china. themfirms come in and give almost 51% of the stock to the , giving themselves a minority of 49%. they will live china run the production aspects of the job while they control the administration and marketing of it. that way u.s. companies can buy label -- labor. this trade deficit, which we finance and how we finance it is by selling bonds to china. they have our debt.
it is not healthy, it's not good. free do have balanced trade, that's fantastic. i hope americans will see the light and start putting some terrorist to cut this trade down the china. host: i think darrell mentioned .he balance of trade look at this graphic that shows the u.s. balance of trade deficit that i think the caller referenced with other countries. washburn, maine -- maryland. caller: good morning. i have been watching c-span for some time and i watch you in look into the american people's face and tell blatant lies like you are doing
at this moment to deceive the american people. it's unfortunate that you take this position. you seem to not have a problem with lying to the american people. host: what are the lies? caller: i am glad you asked that question. i still want to get to trade deals. people's facee and say when the russian plane was shot down and you said 10 but this their driver in power said there was not a war. [indiscernible] you said there was worked 10 times. but it was a lie. thesurviving power from --sian plane being shut down
[indiscernible] if you want to challenge me, i can point out so many references thet how you look in american people's face and told him blatant lies. challenge me. [indiscernible] by robert gaylord ross senior that has all these trade deals in their, i read about this .tuff about five years ago way of takingites more wealth from the poor and giving it to the wealthy. host: i have given you your
time, less in maine, a republican. caller: trade deals are bad. ross perot tried to warn on spec in 1992 that it was bad. the trouble is that the trade -- i grew up in new york, the only thing left in ida, new york, is walmart. if hillary clinton gets in it will be more of the same. she will use blake -- bill clinton on the economy. he is the one that stopped it. this country if the clintons get in they will bring in more immigration. we will be a third world hellhole. host: are you for donald trump? yes.r: i work for the power and light
company before i retired and i was the last guy to do switching a carrier before they moved to thailand in 2006. host: how much were you making --en and how much guest: $35 an hour plus overtime. host: how much were they paying overseas? i did this wedding to shut shop -- shout up the power for a carrier. the buildings aren't even there now. they gutted the industry of northern new york. there is nothing left. wendy in maryland, a democrat, thank you and good morning. whenr: i am pretty upset they passed nafta. we put our hands up in the air and decided to just lose the manufacturing.
we have no manufacturing plants today. in every country in the world says her best designers and manufacturers and their artisans to this country to sell products. exhibits subsidize the that could he our own manufacturing base. we have no way to grow our manufacturing base because we don't have a national plan. the erosion of authenticity of american products due to these little paper stickers that say comein china and things into this country that looks very american-made or handmade, and retailers and distributors and manufacturers remove the little paper made in china stickers. all we have to do is enforce the laws we have on the books have a manufacturing strategy and a plan for growing manufacturing.
what those big factories that we used to have, all of that equipment fits on a kitchen table and anybody can manufacture. -- we could have a manufacturing renaissance in this country that could the on error allowed and we just don't do it. host: who are you supporting in this presidential election? caller: hillary clinton with a lot of pride and support. host: what do you think she has set about trade deals. i believe they understand some of the problems that nafta created. i believe that any of these big, laws that we put together that are 6000 pages have problems. after we reevaluate these issues andter we passed these laws
try to fill holes. nobody could have understood what nafta would have done completely. we knew a little bit about what it would do. we could have mitigated the damage dramatically if we have just had a good manufacturing policy and follow the lead of what every other country is doing. bernie sanders wants the party to take a more progressive , minimum wage, climate change and other issues onn they take this up later in july, the month. both thee there for republican and the democratic convention. you can go to our website, c-span. or did for what we will be -- c-span.org for what we
will be doing there. andy free reign for isis, turkey learns its draft. turkey was paying the price for its absence against the islamic state. the country began sealing his border last year and arresting and deporting suspected militants. yesterday the cia director in , talked about what happened in turkey and said that there is a potential for similar types of attacks here in the u.s. seen isil carryout and insight an array of turkish
attacks in the region. indirectly and directly. surprised that isil is not considering carrying out these attacks in the near broad and far broad, the u.s. is leading the coalition to try to astroy as much poison possible. it would be surprising to me that isil is not trying to hit as well in the region as an hour homeland. i think what you see in the propagation of their material and their magazine that goes out, it is exactly that. believes thate the u.s. homeland is hermetically sealed and that the i would guard against that. >> do you think we are more
hermetically sealed then we were after 9/11? absolutely. we have gone through great length and reached our foreign partners about how we learned some painful lessons as the result of 9/11. the intelligence, homeland security are working better than ever before. there is a tremendous amount of information and data out there. some of it accurate and some of it bogus. trying to make sense of it all is challenging. we are left vulnerable -- less vulnerable to the penetration. as we have seen with the internet as well as i thought taking advantage of technology, it allows them to communicate in a very secure fashion is worrisome. host: you can watch us entire
interview on c-span.org. today we will have coverage of the homeland security secretary. they have been working with that terrorism.ombat he will be testifying before a senate judiciary committee. that at 9:45have a.m. eastern time and also in morning, michael bloomberg is writing in the opinion section of the wall street journal, saying, that terrorism fight needs silicon valley. he talked about apple's decision ,bout unlocked cell phone news he said they argued in effect that they shouldn't be forced to cooperate with a search warrant, even the failure to comply to put innocent lives at risk. , the public may not be so lucky. if the government is in a
of a cell- possession phone and has reason to believe a contains information about an imminent hijacking, do we allow the manufacture to receive a court order to unlock it? of course not. the constitution does not carve out an exception for tech companies. it is worth remembering that the taxpayers beginning under eisenhower funded the r and d that led to the development of the internet. we are spending the first part of today's washington journal talking about trade in your view on these trade deals. guy in washington, a democrat. you have to listen through your phone and turned on your tv. i you ready to go? caller: sorry about that. old.0 years
i have been watching this for a long time. you said the people straight on nafta. george bush instigated nafta. it was signed by the president. the trade deals that we made throughout the world are fine. there is plenty of money to be made. the problem is it is not going back to the people. it is going to the cayman islands and making rich people richer and they are not spreading the wealth around. host: robert in jupiter, florida, independent. not trade opinion deals is overall i think the trade deals are very bad. the public is misinformed that the president wants to mislead us. they want to use globalization as a scapegoat.
how are we going to compete in the united states against china and india to create the here people are hypocrites. we don't want the pollution here, but it is fine for us to import the products that are killing our jobs. host: how do you know? do you speak from personal experience? how do you know? caller: the last 20 some years i -- observed it, nafta, the results of nafta and jobs going to other countries. all we want to is assembled things here. argumentt about the that the president made that it is not nafta that replace the jobs, technology and production and machines are doing more and replacing people. is partially to.
the problem is why should we be giving any jobs away to other countries? if a company goes to another country to make it cheaper and we lose jobs here, it could come back when it was $20 made in the united states. what good is that if we can't afford it? host: part of the effort behind the leave campaign in the united kingdom, leaving the united brexit waslled globalization and trade and immigration. the relationship that country has with europe and the european union. the news this morning is that johnson whon mayor
was behind this leave campaign says he will not run or british run minister. the question of who will lead britain into its future outside of the european union, a mess for nearly a month was were the scrambled. the deadline for entering the to occupy 10 downing street is just hours away. offill be a likely stand between just said and theresa may. but michael grove, the justice secretary who was regarded as , shocked everyone by announcing that he, too, would enter the fray. talking about the impact of brexit coming up here on the washington journal, what it means for the global economy as well as the united states. thepresident when he was at
trilateral news conference in canada was asked about donald .rump's populism message something that donald trump said is similar to what happened in the united kingdom. this is what the president had to say about populism. >> somebody else who has never shown any regard for workers, has never fought on behalf of social justice or making sure that poor kids are getting a decent shot at life or have health care or have worked economic opportunity for workers and ordinary people. they don't suddenly become a populist because they say something controversial in order to win votes.
that is not the measure of populism. nativism or xenophobia. or worse. that was the president yesterday, meeting with his fellow nafta leaders. deals andd trade talked about other issues as well with those leaders here in he also talked to the canadian parliament and was well received there. aftere back last night that nafta summit in ottawa. in other news this morning usa the american constitution
society today will have their annual review of supreme court .erm at 1230 also happening today in washington the chief of naval operations will brief the media on its investigation into the .eizure of the two both by iran caller: as far as the naftacaller:, we gave appear in the u.s. a lot of income. billion, that's
what i learned in my economics classes. in 1960's we had another attack from foreign corporations buying up our steel industry. i went to school and college on the g.i. bill. we learned that joe's -- a steel company was sold to a french company and they were put out of business. brackets are the competition. , i have madenafta this before, the chinese still maintain tariffs in their negotiations. donald trump is right about what he said. we don't receive any money for
their products coming into our country and yet we have to pay tariffs to their products except on raw materials. the point is that the legislators have let us down. they have allowed corporations in the 60's to buy up our companies. corporation in philadelphia, they had 7200 jobs and in order to stay in business to builda contract rail cars. the contract went to japan. they were able to build rail cars back in the early 70's a lot less than we did. .ederal tax money went overseas
those jobs were lost. charleston, north south carolina. tell you howe nafta blame goes south carolina. we know that george bush and and othersnas drafted this thing, or of their teams did. clinton signed it into law. every lawmaker and washington from south carolina voted against it except one republican in the house. it barely passed in the house. it overwhelmingly passed in the senate. fritz hollings voted against it. of the corer heard door of shame down here?
in fermin -- burma's to jim -- he voted against nafta. -- the wordess chesterfield and marlborough, they are cigarettes. there are also the counties in south carolina. they are jim's district. the tobacco industry was completely destroyed. jim clyburn invest -- he inherited that. -- those are ghost towns in his district map. same thing happened to me textile industry. part of the a big economy in the state and it was shameful that people got on board with that thing. i don't know why it passed overwhelmingly in the senate.
that pass succeeded to 30. it was not planned, the conversation was not about the e-mail investigation. our conversation was a great deal about his grandchildren and about our travels. it was a story about how -- the president will be traveling to north carolina to campaign with hillary clinton next week.
sponsors for the gop convention are planning to skip it. here are the folks that are going, kevin mccarthy, mitch mcconnell, marco rubio and paul ryan are all planning to attend. trumps fundraising as far reaching even going overseas. e-mails were sent to parliament ,embers for the united kingdom the e-mails were among a wave of fundraising. the solicitations prompted groups to file two separate planes with the sec, alleging that the trial campaign was
getting funds from foreign nationals. samantha powers said she took a very shot at travel over refugees in this country. house republicans recent regulation seem to point right ban of muslims from certain countries. some are calling for even broader bands such as banning all immigrants their religion. if you would like to go to our website you can find it there. also you can find this about the former secretary of state hillary clinton, set up her private e-mail server before her .erm as secretary of state
that detail was learned by top , raisinga aberdeen questions about why no e-mails about her first few months in returnedre part of the to the government. she said technical difficulties force mrs. clinton to give up the at&t account that she used. let's get on a couple of more calls if we can. maryland, a democrat. caller: first of all, thank you for c-span. out -- i wanted to point i have two comments -- i want to point out that the cato institute is funded by the koch brothers so be where of anything that comes out of that. host: ok. caller: the last comment about free trade is it is a fact of life. the world is global and products
flow freely a huge container ships. they are produced everywhere in the world. if you want to succeed in the world today, you have to have more than a high school education so we should try to educate our kids free so they can go on to college and get a free education and become productive in this current society. times change. we have to go with the times and times are changing radically. that's all i have to say. host: charlton, rhode island, a republican. caller: thank you for c-span. off once before on important topics what want to answer this. host: make it quick if you can. caller: you asked the prior caller what are the signs, how do you see that trade has hurt this country and the workers? all you have to do is go to upstate new york and across the midwest, over to california.
there are towns that are absolutely ghost towns today because of companies leaving. the carolinas used to build all of our furniture and make our carpet and it's gone. it's absolutely gone. there is a double whammy -- dealso all these trade which takes the jobs out of the then you get a president and all the politicians let all the people come into this country, low wage earners, which is a double when he which takes the jobs left out there for the people who are working for a decent salary. it is so out of sank. -- sync. it's the wall street money people with their big corporations. i never thought like this until the last three or four years. want theorporations one world order.
that's what they are looking for. try to pass legislation. they will control our lives from , from being able to borrow money and run businesses come all the things that come out of the epa, you are restricted, everything you do. let me tell you about immigration. i believe in immigration but if i drive down the street and i don't have a seat belt me, i get a ticket. if i jaywalk, i can get a ticket. we have people coming into this country who are breaking laws all along. we are giving them welfare and food stamps. host: i have to leave it there so we can move on. up next, we will talk with wilsone egan, from the center and we will talk about later,lout of brexit and we will talk about republican proposals to replace the informal care act.
[video clip] government figures released yesterday show the number of children living in poverty has jumped by 200,000 in one year to a total now of 3.9 million children in this country living in poverty. does he not think that he should , at the least, apologize to them and the parents who have been failed by his government and do something about it so we reduce the levels of child poverty in this country? deal with the to figures, let me give them to you. income inequality is gone down. he asked about poverty. there are 300,000 fewer people in relative poverty since 2010, half a million fewer people in
absolute poverty since 2010. if he is looking for excuses we were onhe sides about the referendum, he should look somewhere else. i have to say to the honorable gentleman, he talks about job insecurity, it might be in my parties interest but it's not in the national interest. for heaven's sake, man, go. felt the urge to make money. what turned me on in the 60's was to make policy. that is always what drove me. >> sunday night, a two-part interview with former public interest lawyer and politician mark green. generational memoir on the progress of rise in which he talks about his life and career in public office. thatu have to have a drive
may be undesirable in a spouse or a friend. you have to wake up and go to sleep and think i want this so much. if you do everything, you win said lyndon johnson. >> part one airs sunday night at q&a" in part two will air monday night. on c-span two. host: we are back with michelle egan who is a professor at american university school of service and a fellow for the wilson center, in the global europe program. thank you for being here. i want to show you this headline in "the wall street journal" -
what is it that the eu is saying to the united kingdom? thise eu is very worried will create a domino effect and others will want a referendum to leave the eu. they are staking out a hard claimant the beginning. any negotiator would do that. that the signals netherlands and france want a referendum as well. host: what does the united kingdom want? what are they want to keep and what do they not want from the eu? >> great britain has always seen the eu in transactional terms, cost benefits. they wouldthings like is access to a single market. it's all about trade and market access. so, what do they want access to, what type of market? >> so they can sell their product and services. guest: great britain has london which is a key part of the
british economy. it is the unbalanced economy because we go mostly financial services. what they don't want is free movement of labor. they don't want labor mobility. they don't want by of people coming into the u.k., presumably eu citizens, and, as some argue, taking british jobs. they want access to the market but they would like to put up a border on immigration and migration labor flows. host: why does the eu say no? guest: the eu was founded on a treaty and like anything else, there are four freedoms. the most important one is labor. that has been a big fight within the referendum. what can we do about it? the europeans will hold a hard-line. there are several million including 800,000 polls in britain who want to stay. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] great britain
putting into the u.k., $400 million per week?to other eu countries we are one much? >> of the largest economies in the eu. other in money but on the hand, we get out a great deal of money. one of the issues we have to face is that we will no longer get agricultural subsidies, low longer get science and educational subsidies. 40% of agricultural firms in britain might become insolvent if we did not have eu funding so it's a two-way flow. host: is the eu saying definitely you will not get this? these otherrning to countries thinking about doing the same? guest: there were some concerns this moneydon't give to the eu, we can put it into national health. they have retracted that and said we don't think we can do that. the second concern they have is and pharma is a concern
science and universities on the promised thateers we will keep up the funding through 2020 but where that money will come from now that markets are fallen and we have a growth of austerity will be an open question. what do you make of the news that boris johnson says he will not run for prime minister? guest: i am surprised because many people put him as an odds on favorite. i think he might have genuinely been surprised by the results and i think he thought that perhaps by staking his claim on the other side, they would push david cameron to give a date to leave and he would step in. hope for thosehe that did not want to leave the european union, that they are not completely divorced from the eu? how can they negotiate that? there was a house of
commons petition within 24 hours, nearly 3 million people said we want a second vote. there are some pundits and some academics who think that given the right circumstances, there may be a second referendum. we've got 16 million on one side and 17 million on the other. , does my firstl vote matter? it has divided the country. will britain pressed the nuclear button and will we formally asked to withdraw? what other arrangement can we get? host: article 50 is the nuclear button? guest: yes, no matter what you hear about union -- european leaders, we need to this slow and quick. no matter what the french president or the german promised or says, the only person who can push that button is her majesty's government and that's the government in office. right now, david cameron has said i am a lame-duck prime minister and i will not push
that button. it will be for the next prime minister. host: how would it unfold? guest: it would be difficult. we would notify the eu and have a two-year window to negotiate a settlement. it's like a divorce and after that, we would have a post divorce settlement about our trade relationship within the eu. it will not be easy. there are many options out there and some people believe, is it possible that perhaps great britain is delaying because it sees the market effect and maybe britain may or may not. it's a question of how valid is that referendum. are turning around and saying even within the parties themselves that they would like a second referendum on the deal that is negotiated on the hope that the result might be overturned. host: let's get to our calls, henderson, nevada, democrat am a go-ahead. caller: how are you doing? like crying out that we don't want to be detroit.
we don't want immigrants to take their jobs. anything.obody to buy it is being called out as a nation and not a city. by leaving, we want to say something before things get so bad. there is cheaper labor and great britain is left out there with nothing. host: any thoughts on that? guest: if you look at the people who voted to leave, it was a cross-section. most people have focused on the politics of grievance, those have been economic elite left the hind -- the economically left behind. more wealthy areas also voted to leave. it was not just detroit, it was also some of the more wealthy areas. whatwe have to consider
will our economic access be. it will be a significant -- a less significant economic power without the eu. we would turn into a mid-atlantic midsize economy. what will be the long-term economic implications? host: ronald, independent caller, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. british, it was all right for them to rule the world and the sun never set on their the shoe wasw that on the other foot, they were able to immigrate to those countries they conquered but now the immigrants are coming back. it does not set very well with them. as far as trade policies, it's the ceo's, the cfos, the managers and directors of these companies that move production
becauseheaper countries they own hundreds of thousands of shares. theirer to increase returns per share, they move the company. , it's thehe workers management and directors that move the company because they want to satisfy the stockholders which they are themselves and percenters who own 1% of the wealth in the united states. host: you look at trade deals like the transpacific partnership. idea of how trade works and the decisions made, what do you say to that guest:? we now have an integrated economy and global value change. trade deals are significant for the british in this debate.
if the british leave, they will have to negotiate more than 20-50 new trade deals. those have been negotiated by the eu and great britain will no longer be a part of that. great britain will have much less leverage. if you're negotiating as a 20th power lock instead of one state, you have more leverage. that thees questions transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations are continuing. britain is still part of the eu and will still participate in these trade deals. for britain, this is different than what you hear in the united states. we are hearing comments about trade on the campaign trail. stilleople on both sides believe in the importance of the single market whether you are a remain or a brexiteer, it's just the front types of trade. host: in what ways? who want toeople
remain like access to the single market and travel without a visa or a passport and like to study abroad and be able to sell abroad and have common standards and rules. did noto want to exit dispute the importance of the single market. they did not like is the free movement of labor, the ability of people from both sides to live, work, and study in europe. the concern they had was the from when they joined in 2004. millione about 2.5 brits who live overseas in the eu and they will be at earthly affected by this. host: what does this -- what is the trade deal between great britain and the united states? guest: i think that will continue because they have british negotiators on the team and they will absolutely continue with this trade deal.
doesbrexit put a wrench in the works? yes, there is a level of uncertainty. it's aain leaves the eu, voice for liberalization that becomes missing within the eu. they are one of the strongest proponents of trade liberalization. anwill have somewhat of impact on the internal dynamics of the eu as well. host: to give our viewers an overview of this eu -- u.s. trade deal -- guest: many people are familiar ttip has trade irritants and rules that are different. what the hope is is to try to have not a race to the bottom but to have some safety and environmental rules that are compatible to make it easier to do business on both sides of the atlantic but also to protect consumers.
it's a whole range of sectors. some global create rules, particularly for third country markets. is a concern for them that they want to be rule makers, not rule takers. host: back to the calls, pittsburgh, republican. i think wed morning, have a remainer speaking to us and so am i. i'm sorry to see david cameron go. about the worry bumper sticker that says people voted against it to keep immigrants out. there is much more to the eu them that. free trade zone is one thing. genet's dream of the united
states is quite another. what other regulations come from the european commission? thathe european parliament are imposed upon britain and the other member states that britain sovereignty in and the other eu countries? how difficult are those to deal with? how much do they cost? guest: you're absolutely right, this was not just about immigration. there were very few exit polls but the ones we see, it was immigration, it was sovereignty, it was a sense of getting our country back, it was a whole variety of issues. some people think it was a politics of protest. they were protesting about their economic situation in the u.k. and the decline of public services like health care. the eu does not get involved in health services. in talking about being a
remainer, i came from a 49nstituency that voted 51- from depressed and affluent areas and i saw how the vote was going to split. i think this had multiple causes. some of them go back a decade or two. some of them are concerns about the overregulation of the eu. we might also think about the way the press and the politicians have talked about the eu for a long time. if you're going to be negative, it is hard last two months to change public opinion. that's not to say the eu is not distant from most people but i would suggest that is not only rustles distant, london is distant. i am from the north and we don't see the eu on the ground if there -- in either. it's a multiple set of issues but there is a generational split three of most people who are 18-25, 75% of them voted to
remain. those over 55 voted to leave area there is a generational split but there is also a regional split between the london and scotland in the sort of every i come from outside of liverpool which voted to leave predominantly. host: we have aligned this morning for international viewers -- jim from pennsylvania, independent. caller: good morning. i had to topics i wanted to ask .bout are i was taken back by all the people wanting a re-vote and they are not accepting the outcome. maybe it's part of today's society that they don't accept when they lose. onish they would just move
in the fashion the people voted for. secondly, earlier on your programming, there was some information regarding campaign financing for mr. trump. i'm not sure if that was true or not. is there anyway you can verify or dispute the claims about mrs. clinton and her ties with the saudi arabia money and yemen? host: that's a whole mother conversation. right now we are focusing on the fallout from the brexit vopte. they lost. that's they not trusting what u.k. voters want? when it is that close a vote, it was going to be divisive. in britain, our electoral were a long time coming. this is a debate about europe.
europe crosses across region so been onerobably of the most divisive in politics for a long time so most people thought this was a momentous decision. after an election were four or five years, you can change your mind, this one was a binary referendum. it was yes or no. it's a very close vote. some people want to do over but if you have a do over, how many people will regret that decision now that the markets have changed and how many people will stick with the same decision? it's an open question. host: massachusetts, independent, what do you think? caller: i think this question dovetails nicely into the question that was posted earlier about trade. i am happy to hear the words race to the bottom for the first time in an hour. that is what i see happening.
we have trade deals and we have eu item and it seems that people are upset because they see all around them a race to the bottom where corporations make great deals for themselves but the people don't get what they need which is a place to live, roof over their heads, food to eat, health care, etc. while other people make massive amounts of money. that is what the trade deal seems to do. one thing to remember with this particular trade deal, the europeans have had a large movement particularly in germany and austria. is that they don't want a race to the bottom and they want certain cultural
standards and the don't want genetically modified foods. there has been a hard look within the eu about transparency , lifting civil society. one has to remember that the unions on both sides will look at this carefully. looking at this issue in 2013, the european and theion corporation afl-cio were actually working together to think about how we can put labor and environmental rights in the trade agreement. in terms of the notion of race to the bottom, something europeans don't want to hear about and have been vocal about, the concern that i have as well is that a lot of the british decline has been over the last 20-30 years. it has not necessarily been a result of trade deals but we have seen a de-industrialization in the heart of britain with a shift to the service economy,
the high-paying city of london, architects, accountants, and lawyers but we have also seen what we think are the more general service economy with wage compression and lower wages. we have seen that in the u.k. and we have seen the decline of manufacturing like shipbuilding and steel and so forth. that has been a 30 year decline in the u.k. we havebably the fact an unbalanced economy between the more prosperous london areas and those outside. host: transpacific partnership, that is pending and that will be part of a discussion at the cato institute today. coming up at 9:00 a.m. eastern, we will have coverage of it on c-span3 with the u.s. trade representative. europe ortpp mean for the united states, for the global economy? guest: in some ways, some people argue that because tpp was the
asia rebalance that obama was doing that there was some concerns that the europeans had with the lack of progress on the issue of something similar. it followed on the heels of that. it's covering a whole spectrum of issues from small and medium companies to state owned enterprises to has medics and medical devices. there is a lot of coverage so one could argue that u.s. has pushed this and it's part of the asia strategy. europeans have responded. finalized also now canadian trade deal. itsas also decided to re-up trade agreement with mexico so it is responding to what is happening tpp in the. host: arlington, virginia, republican. and away, the british
are a magnifier of what's going on in the united states switching the economy to a service economy. it's more extreme in britain but it's happening here as well. this vote wasthat a rejection of the establishment big-time. and they still refuse to work on it. the bbc is terrible on this. they are hooked on the remainder campaign. they have had articles lately that look for the most minute things to say they are a bunch of racist who voted for this. they have to get over it. they are talking about scotland. vote and someone brought up northern island but everyone back off of that. i think they have to get their act together.
if texas decided it did not like our policies and it would secede, you would see how that would be received, not well. i think they should get together and figure out how they will do between get it to where europe and britain it's a trade compact and sort out the migration issue. while the issue in britain was the eastern europeans, i think what set the whole thing off in a major way was the problem in germany. they will have to get together to figure that out if they are going to have a stable situation in europe. he was referring to the refugees coming into germany, i believe. yes, we have the refugees and the port of calais having refugee camps. issueale and scope of the
overwhelmed europe. there has been multiple different reactions. the openness of germany was contrasted with the concern of hungary and others about the influx and settlement of refugees. certainly, the refugee crisis was a big issue. the euro zone crisis and the financial crisis -- europe has been through so many crises. you should point out -- you mentioned scotland and northern ireland -- the big concern people are raising for northern ireland is not about the withdrawal. have had a peace agreement between northern ireland and southern ireland and there will eventually, if the people want it, be a poll to see if they would be united. the concern people have as part of the 1995 agreement was the notion of free borders, the fact that people from both sides could freely trade and deal with the sectarian violence and get over it.
for 20 years, we have done quite well. we have stopped thinking about the northern ireland peace process and people are concerned that great britain will now have a new border if it leaves with ireland. that's the concern because that violates the term of the good friday agreement. for should be a concern people thinking about the security of northern ireland and the post-brexit future. host: canton bill, maryland, democrat. concern is that the european union acts as a dictatorship as to who can make what and where it can be made. england is a bit manufacturing facility in its day and can survive as they will pullout from the european union. it's similar to america where we were a manufacturing global economy at one time and we have given that away. we are being dictated by the rest of the world.
i sympathize with england for wanting to pull away. guest: there is a lot of criticism that many aspects of transparent veryun- to those who live and work across europe. having said that, it is the eu member states, the heads of states, the prime ministers and presidents, who sit down and negotiate and they would argue it's about collective stability. they would argue it's about peace and security in the continent given the history of war. that would be their legacy and how -- and what they would .2. most people do not know where these rules and regulations are coming from a we have an elected european parliament but the problem with parliaments generally is that voting for them nationally and at the european level have been declining. a referendum is a very different kind of vote than a presidential or parliamentary election. we can see the frustration people have had.
they don't know where the rules of come from. there are assets to people thinking now perhaps that this needs to be more public engagement by the eu and reform. it's difficult. there are checks and balances. if you have your prime minister or president at the table, the idea is if you are 28, you are much bigger fire on the global stage. host: baltimore, independent, what are your thoughts? prefacei would like to thanks for c-span. anglophile and a world war ii veteran. i am 89 years old. it was the most encouraging thing i have heard, brexit, because once again the english are deciding to return to the .ays of churchill england this ridiculous idea of
globalization which was last hised by secretary kerry in commencement address where he told graduates that they are now in a world without borders. i think the world without borders is like a house without a door. host: would you agree with his description? as a veteran, i salute. i would tell you that churchill pause grandson who is a member of parliament for the conservative party indicated that his grandfather would have voted for remain. whether that's true or not, we don't know. the turmoil we are having now in terms of political chaos in britain, the level of division in the society that it has revealed and the concern people have had about a small upsurge
in race and racial abuse and the tax have revealed -- and the tax ks have revealed issues we have to deal with. this is a difficult time for britain with a level of uncertainty. it will be very important to bridge the geographic divide, the generational divide, and the leaders -- people keep talking about the vote against the establishment. we also have to remember that remain and leave campaign were both headed by members of political parties in great britain. host: butler, kentucky, a democrat. caller: i am 70 years old. i remember when you could sleep with your windows open. man could gete a up with no education and work in a steel plant or work in car manufacturing.
many things have been taken over by machines. today, walmart is a major employer. you make eight dollars per hour. in 19 79, i went to work for a company. i started at $5.50 per hour and after early days, i went to $9.15 per hour. at the end of my career, i was making around $40 per hour with benefits. today, i am paying for benefits for walmart workers and paying for their retirement and paying for their children to go to school. this is something people should have been able to vote on in the first place and set of politicians making these deals. it's like mr. obama had a deal the other day. white is a trade deal have to be behind closed doors?
-- why does a trade deal have to be behind closed doors? the eu puts out its negotiating paper so the have had a backlash and civil society about openness. getting to your point about wages and welfare, one of the exit ando remember br the eu is the welfare benefits are british and not eu. we set the rules for our own welfare state and deal with social policy and so forth. some of the problems we have been finding is the cuts and welfare in the u.k. people have been concerned because there have been several generations trying to have access who are on welfare and are trying to get employment. host: florida, independent caller. caller: hi, i was listening to the last gentle man. it makes sense but it's almost like the u.k. and the u.s. mirror each other. we are having the same problems
here as you have their. we have the immigrants. living one low 90% low with 10% living on high. i want to question you about that. host: let's talk about the parallels between the u.s. and the u.k. guest: there is a lot of indication that populism and , in some quarters, there was an indication that they called this independence day, the notion of getting our country back. i think some of the parallels are overdrawn. the concern in this presidential election about trade, this was
most people on both sides really interested and were not anti-trade in this brexit debate. that is one difference and i that say, you are correct the eu seems distant to the regular person in the street. if you want to look at some of the benefits because people are talking about wages and so forth, some of the social rules , sexy quality, come out of the eu so we have to allen's between what we don't like as rules -- we have to allen's between what we don't like as rules to what -- we have betweents -- balance what we don't like as rules and what we like. let's listen to what president obama had to say when he was in canada about what he
would like to see with the brexit process. [video clip] >> my main message to david cameron, angela merkel and others is everybody should catch their breath, come up with a plan and a process that is orderly, transparent, that and thenderstand that bothderstanding sides have a stake in getting this right. think that will be eight difficult and challenging process but it does not need to be a panicky process. i think it can be a steady, sensible process. leadership issues in great written will need to be resolved and asto move as crisply
effectively as it needs to but i think that's recognized. when the president says it should be orderly and transparent, what kind of timeline would produce orderly and transparent? until article 50, the nuclear button is pressed, it has to be by the british government and when we will have a new leadership, will we have a general election to deal with the fall out from the challenges in the labour and conservative party. right now, david cameron has not indicated that this is happening under his watch. there are some considerations that the british might not want to push this until the german and french elections. there are some who feel this could take a long time and will this actually happen? there are pundits on both sides.
for all of the people today who talk about trade in the negative impact, we have seen the crash of the markets over the last few days but we are also hearing from companies talking about relocating. for those of you who have flown virgin atlantic, richard ranson says he lost a huge value on his company and he will no longer have thousands of jobs he was going to create. we will see this impact. if given uncertainty, some companies may seek to relocate, particularly the financial sector. my concern is the impact on jobs which is the big issue. i think that is something for us to be concerned about. obama saying orderly process, please don't say it will be orderly until -- it's only the british that can press this article 50 button. host: memphis, tennessee, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning to you and
your guest and c-span listeners. i called because i wanted to correct something the young lady is saying. she made the comment when the world war ii veteran called in and said returned to the churchill days. one thing that was contradictory , the guest made the comment that his grandson -- host: we heard that point. she said we don't know if it's true or not. the idea ofecause the eu actually came from churchill himself following world war ii. he made the comment that the only thing that would put an end combination of a an organization such as the eu. host: let's take thathost: point. absolutely, when he made
a comment, he was talking about the end of the cold war and the iron curtain but he said the atlantic charter and he said we are with europe but not of europe to describe britain's relationship them with the eu or the fledgling organization. you're absolutely right. there was big support as well from a marshall plan of the united states and the u.s. support or some form of organization that would promote peace, prosperity, and in economic locked but would event further war. your absolute correct. the comments i was raising is the conservative mp, his brand was on theas somes remain silent and that is the churchill legacy. of more calls, wallingford, connecticut, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. how would it be different for
whot britain from norway was also not any european union? guest: that's a great question. it has been the question of the hatred will we get a settlement like norway? they have indicated you don't want this settlement. one thing that norway did is it had two referendums on joining the eu and has rejected them twice. it's quite divisive in norwegian society. they participate in something called the european economic area. they get access to the single market but they have to pay into the budget. their argument is that while they have to take the rules of the eu for the single market and regulations and rules and market access, they don't sit at the table and setting them. they said to britain, do you want that. there are indications that may be the way the british go. becomes is what about the free movement of
labor? that would come with that kind of settlement. some people are saying we need a different model, a free trade agreement like along the lines of canada. host: last call, massachusetts, independent. waser: good morning, i going to say to michelle that it is too bad you are on the britain side. it's too bad we don't have a representative from the united states sitting there going hand-in-hand for the answers you can give us. you are not telling us anything. journalism, you would want to get feedback from you and you are doing this all alone. why can't you have a representative from the united states go through this process? host: why a representative from the united states? caller: because i am from the united states. i will not have some coexistence
to listen to michelle -- this is the first time i heard from brexit in your economic fallout. are you wondering what the economic fallout is for the united states? caller: what does it mean? our rules are different from yours. that's why there should be some representative like maybe john kerry. as a parliamentary system, one of the things to realize with this this withdrawal process is absolutely unique. it has never occurred before in the history of the eu. isn the british government still dealing with the legal implications. has already looked to see what their position is.
it's a different system been here in the united states. it's not very often when we think about withdrawal from an international organization that we have been with for more than 40 years. the implications are enormous because we have a scottish parliament that cannot remain within the eu because it is part of the u.k. there are legal questions and economic questions and political questions. given the fact that this is a different political system than the united states, you are right, how does this compare to the u.s. and what is the impact on the u.s.? we hear from obama as well. fellowichelle egan is a at the global unit. wewill take a break and when come back, we will turn our attention to the republican ideas for replacing the so-called affordable care act and later in our last hour, the ben ghazi committee released its
final report this week we'll talk about those findings. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> this fourth of july weekend, book tv has four days of nonfiction books and authors on c-span2. eastern, at 9:30 a.m. an interview with california senator barbara talks are discussing her political career. playerpro basketball kareem abdul-jabbar weighs in on current political issues and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell on his life and politics.
saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern the sciences, writer discusses her book rise of the rocket girls, the women who propelled us from missiles to the moon to mars in which she chronicles an elite group of women at their contributions to rocket design, space exploration and the first american satellite. she is interviewed by lisa rand. >> in the beginning, they did a lot of trajectories and calculated the potential of different rocket propellants and they did trajectories for many of the early missiles. they worked on the corporal and the sergeant. then things changed when the space race happened and when nasa was formed. these women's roles began changing. they ended up the coming the labs first computer programmers and they have these incredibly long careers at nasa, 40 or 50 years. one of them still works there today. live: > on sunday, we are
with sebastian younger who will take your calls and questions from noon until 3:00 p.m. eastern discussing his latest book, tribe. he is also the author of war, at that in belmont and the perfect storm. at 9:00 p.m. eastern, part two of a special two-part q&a interview with mark green, author of right, infinite future, a generational memoir on the progressive rise. on monday at 2:30 p.m. eastern, both to the tors of vivian g harsh collection, the largest african-american history and literature collection in the midwest house of the chicago public library's would soon regional ranch. for the complete schedule, go to book tv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back at our table
this morning. health policy and congressional reporter to talk about efforts by the republicans to replace the affordable care act. after six years, the house leadership released its ideas for replacing this health care law. this is what the speaker had to say and we will go through the highlights. [video clip] >> obamacare folkestone quantity because it put bureaucracy first. our plan will focus on quality because we put patients first. we think that way to go. let me say it this way -- either we have the government forcing us and telling us what we have to do and where we have to do it and how much we have to pay for it or we put ourselves in charge. we as consumers, as patients, do we want to be the ones driving the health care system? wherewant to be the ones all the providers, insurance companies and nurses and doctors
and hospitals and nursing homes, compete for our business based on price and quality and outcomes? that is freedom. that is a patient centered health care system. that is the kind of health care system we can and should have. we can have a system in this hastry where everyone access to quality health insurance including people with pre-existing conditions without a costly one-size-fits-all government mandated government run system. last that was the speaker week outlining what the republicans would like to do to replace the affordable care act. they expand health savings account, 28 billion dollars, refundable tax credits, consumers can buy across state lines. what is new here? the big thing that is new is this the first time there has membershite paper that
can coalesce around. there has been a bunch of different, smaller bills but this is their way of saying we want to repeal obamacare care and this is what we want to replace it with. this is the groundwork of legislation to come. host: how would it work? what are they doing that would be different? what are they doing to the affordable care act of these were put into law? guest: they are repealing it so we would not have the insurance marketplaces we have. it gets rid of the individual mandates and replaces it with thathing that is different appeals to core republican principles like expanding health care savings accounts. they like to characterize it as a backpack for health care that you can take from job to job
into retirement. it is kind of changing the system that we have now. host: are all the republican factions behind this proposal? guest: it was released by 4 high-ranking chairman who put this together. it was kind of released last week so the idea would the that this is something that members could get behind. well, dothe senate as they have the same proposal? guest: this is just house republicans. i talked to one of the chairman and he said he is confident this is something the senate can get behind but the senate has not released a larger proposal. host: any plan to put this on the floor in the house and the senate? ahead of the election? guest: this is something that would be hammered out into
legislative text in 2017. if something to give voters an idea that we are on the campaign trail and talking about replacing obamacare. what does that mean? here is the idea and we would take it to committee and hammer out legislative text in 2017 and this is what we want to do going forward. let us come in and do this. host: let's compare with the speaker of the house rolled out last week with the donald trump health care plan. he would like to expand health savings accounts and require price transparency and allow drug importation and consumers can buy coverage across state lines and medicaid block rants and allow individuals to deduct health insurance premiums from tax returns. and a big differences? guest: right now, the biggest difference is this is from the house gop. it's a 37 page white paper. sevennald trump plan is
points that could fit on a handful of index cards. detaildifferent level of even though the white paper does not have operational details. it is more detailed than the seven points the donald trump has. it's a little bit hard to completely compare. the donald trump plan has some things that are similar. host: we want to get your thoughts about the proposal to a place -- to replace the affordable care act. this is how we are dividing the lines what is next for republicans?
the conservatives have been disappointed that they have not moved faster to replace the affordable care act. are they satisfied with his plan for the november election? guest: when speaker ryan came in, that's one of the things he said he wanted to do to form this task force to say we are going to put a plan out there. thatll have a white paper will be something more intricate for the next year. that's the big thing he wanted to say is that we will come together and do this. host: any parts of the affordable care act that republicans would keep? guest: that's a good question. details.in the the idea is to repeal the affordable care act and replace it with this. cover pre-existing
conditions which was covered in the affordable care act. they are calling it continuing coverage so if you continue to have insurance, there is no lapse in health care coverage and insurers were not been able to raiseld not be able your rates because of that. host: fredericksburg virginia, employers insurance. caller: thank you for taking my call. is it not true that individuals in congress do not have to adhere to the regulations put forth by obama? they have a whole another situation for insurance. the illegal immigrants in our nation, is not health care free to them? are they not treated far better than our veterans? i will take my answer off-line. host: do you know the answers to those questions? about immigrants?
do they get access to health benefits? plan: the house republican does not specify what exactly would happen under that circumstance. beaverton, oregon, employer insurance, good morning. caller: good morning, i've got a unique experience. of americann canada parents. i have experienced both health care systems. when i look at the republican plan, we are talking about consumers and patients. i can agree with patience. i have almost 30 years and health care and one thing to me is health care is a right. that is available to everyone.
planoes this republican promote that, really promote it? you pointed out that the pre-existing conditions -- is with theg republican plan, as long as you continue to have insurance, it's portable. i understand that when you don't , you will have a hard time getting it. guest: that seems like that would be an interesting to having an experience in both health care systems. legislative tex-mex year, it would be interesting to see how that is dealt with, how easy it becomes to get health insurance. we have the insurance marketplaces right now if you don't have employer-sponsored
coverage were people who are uninsured can get coverage. it will be interesting to see what happens and what they decide to do and put into in terms of making that more detailed. talking about what the house republicans unveiled last week to replace the affordable care act. "the washington times" reports --
aurora, colorado, you get your insurance through the aca? tell us your experience. i have had the great experience and right now i am healthy. if i would have used this republican plan, whatever they are planning, i would not be covered. for a pre-existing condition. affordable care act, i could not afford to pay for my health insurance. and i were working
them are not able to be covered. i had to go to the emergency room when i was sick and with the affordable care act, i can go to the doctor because they have free checkups. diagnose whatto is about to come or the type of sickness i might have or whatever. is this a story you have heard? guest: the affordable care act was designed to let people go into the marketplace and buy insurance. andou could not afford it you meet the income criteria, it would give you a tax credit. something the republican plan has is an advanced double tax credit which would be for people who don't have employer covered insurance and also are not on medicare or medicaid. host: dallas, texas, uninsured,
good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i live in alice, texas. -- dallas, texas. we have one of the highest uninsured rates in the entire country. when obamacare got past, our governor at the time, rick perry, denied access to the funds that obama wanted to send to our state, the highest uninsured state in the nation. one of the problems with this whole thing is a profit motive. there are certain industries in our country that should not have a profit motive. the criminal justice system is one and the health care system is another. we have a profit motive and the people lose. host: anything to add there? affordable care act get hospitals paid
for the quantity of people coming in and focus on the quality of care. that trying to provide goal. lorton, virginia, employer insurance, you are on the air. morning, this health savings account thing is just another way for the republicans to satisfy wall street. it's hard enough out here and i make good money and i have a couple of kids and we are barely making it. the health savings account only benefit people who are wealthy and can afford it. host: let's talk about how this health savings account works. plan wase republican to expand those.
we will see more next year. the plan is to take the andework that is 37 pages give it to the relevant committees and hammer out what will be in the legislative text. we will continue to see more details about what exactly it will the next year. clearwater, florida, you are enrolled in the aca? what is that process like? caller: i love it. insurance.alth care the premiums went down. the woman from colorado, i am covered for just about everything i need, everything i need so far. i think we need to expand it. that it went through the supreme court and they made it law of the land?
why are you guys trying to replace it? your plan is not good at all. host: do you get a subsidy at all? when i file my taxes, i get a subsidy. ok, tax break? is that how it works? caller: yes. i have not been denied anything and i think it needs to be expanded. i am all for single-payer. a tweet from a viewer -- the viewer mentioned she would like to see the affordable care act expanded. secretarypaign trail, hillary clinton has talked about her plan to build upon the aca
foundation. some examples would be a $250 monthly out of pocket cap on drugs and three sick visits without having to meet the deductible. that is something democrats have been talking a lot about. senator sanders was for universal health care coverage. building upon the affordable care act is something democrats in congress talk about and so does secretary clinton. host: germantown, maryland, employer insurance caller:. thank you for taking my call. i enjoy c-span a lot. originally laid off -- i am on my wife's employer insurance now but prior to that, i was laid off in 2013. when it was aca just starting.
it was hard to get on but i did. the experience was wonderful. getting ation i was the time when i was working prior to 2013 before i got laid likei was paying something over $100 for a specialty drug that i take. the medication is a ridiculous rice and i got on aca and i got it was noted that double, nothing on my part -- nothing on the do dr. double, nothing on my part. i don't understand why the republicans are trying to replace it. it's already the law of the land. host: southfield, michigan, you get your insurance through the aca, your turn caller:. good morning. thank you for taking my call. when i see the proposal that
paul ryan put out, what is the difference? how does it benefit us and what makes it better than what we already have? essentially, it's two different philosophies. it publick to another in, they will say they want to repeal obama care because it is not working and has driven up high premiums and they will say there's will have more choice and lower cost and more flexibility. it's two different philosophies of care. the law has been contentious. inwas started and signed 2010 and passed without a single republican vote. it's something the parties continue to fight over. michigan, good morning,
what are your thoughts? caller: good morning, good morning, good morning. i don't understand the term affordable health care. i don't even understand pre-existing conditions. oryou have cancer tuberculosis, they have treatments for this they can give you even though they give you insurance. who is getting the money? where do the premiums go? how can they find people who choose not to take it? what happens to seniors when the have to pay a large percentage of treatment in certain things. the explanations that are given, everything is open to interpretation. set down so weng can understand what's going on
blah. than blah, bvblah, host: guest where to the premiu? do you know how this works? premiums, -- with your health insurance, you did mention seniors. if you are 65 and older, you are on medicare. when you are paying for your insurance you have a deductible, and amount of money you have to meet before your insurance will kick in. sponsored health insurance, the might pay for some your health insurance. plan.ll sign up for a your employer might give you three different options and you will pay into that plan. for some people it might be a single adult, $52 per paycheck.
you have employee sponsored health insurance, they will cover some of that cost, which is why it is $52 and lower. if you go to exchanges and you make a certain amount of money, for taxqualify subsidies to help you pay for your insurance. lakeland, florida. you are on the air. caller: i am a citizen advocate and supporter of the bipartisan congressional working group. to take this them up and discuss it and i wanted to invite donald trump and hillary clinton to come and discuss their health care plans. i want this to be a priority for our nation. the economist in september
2014 at a couple of articles about how to fix obamacare. magazines are wonderful things. they come up with good ideas. i want that to be in the next. and what the bipartisan group to meet on this and i want hillary clinton to know that some of us republicans might support her if she would promise to put some republicans in her administration. any reaction? , anythingel roubein you want to pick up? guest: you mentioned you like hillary clinton and donald trump to talk about this. i would assume it is something that would come up in the debates and that they would have opposing viewpoints on health care. again, clinton once to build upon the affordable care, but at to it -- add to it. and the seven points donald trump has mentioned goes to
court republican pencils. -- principles. he said one of that is repealing the affordable care act. i would anticipate in debates the moderators or secretary clinton will press him on more details of what that plan would look like. host: on twitter a couple of you are point. "free market health care does not work because the system is so heavily subsidized." "my insurance costs doubled under the informal care act." miriam in texas? caller: good morning. i have health insurance through my employer. and health care is provided to me through the -- 11? -- hello? host: we are listening. caller: i am a teacher. i have health insurance through
and having insurance before, there is a principle of large numbers which means the bigger the pool, the lower the risk for an insurance company which is what part of what the affordable care act tried to address. ifsecond question is expansion of medicaid was meant -- part of it was to address the problem of rural hospitals being
people withide for low income. if you think the republican proposal addresses these issues. host: republican proposals on increasingly pool, and that was the intention of expanding medicare to increase the pool? guest: the color mentioned increasingly pool. one of the things that was really important was to try to 18-34-year-olds, but they were delving "young invincible's" signing up because of increasing number of people in the pool. they are the ones who are traditionally healthier and traditionally be using less health care. the administration tried to
reach out to those people to get them to sign up so they could lower the average costs. they did not want just sick people to sign up because that would be more higher prices. host: charlotte in frederick, maryland. caller: good morning. i have had employer-pay insurance since i have been medicarebut now i have because i am retired. i am in my 70's. still my backup biz employer-based. i remember preconditions. get insurance with preconditions. the profit-based insurance companies denied anything with a precondition. a stub toe was a precondition. -- things you do
not know you had worked preconditions. babies were born with preconditions so you could not get insurance. qualitative versus quantitative that the speaker is speaking of, the affordable is working on that. the number of hospitalizations is not what account, it's the results. the market-based insurance they are so in favor of did not work at all. -- more people are insured now than before. employers don't can cover -- don't cover people as much and it is difficult to get jobs coming out of school, the 18-26 is also very good. the affordable care act covers things that it did not cover before and also there is no indication that the republicans are providing for that coverage now. thank you. host: let's go to kim in north
carolina. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. about theering how congress incentive? -- and republicans, they all have the best insurance that is available. is that correct? guest: they get their insurance. they can be other employer or through the exchanges. it is something up to them. they could be on the exchanges if they wanted. they could get it through their employer. their spouses coverage. just for just one pool congress members. host: kim? caller: i am still here. host: did you hear what rachel roubein had to say?
the of whatabout they are proposing is so good, why don't they all just take their coverage, tried out for a year and see how they like it? host: ok. ron from newark, new jersey? caller: good morning. how are you? a quick comment. bad -- i have a couple of quick comments because it want to respond to the previous question. just on the quality of the aca, thatht point out republican presidential candidate, ted cruz, admitted appliednever -- a wife for health coverage through the aca. one might take note of that. another point. and thisaller called space to the nature of the aca. it is not single-payer.
they asked the question, where did the premiums for the aca go? is thatre of the aca multiple insurance companies, private insurance, provide health insurance coverage through the aca. premiums --vel the and your guest did not answer this question -- did the premiums go to the insurance companies that provide coverage through the aca? host: does ron have it right? guest: thank you so much for calling. act the affordable care caller'she prior talked about pre-existing conditions and premiums, thank you for bringing that up. it is something in the republican plan that we would
assume we would have a similar premiums and deductibles. they hope that they can lower the premiums for consumers. that is what they are banking on. lower-cost, more flexibility solution in the premiums that the affordable care act has. the premiums that are going up in obamacare. that is the republican and democratic. arguments host: you can follow rachel roubein. thank you for the conversation this morning. guest: thank you. host: probably come back we will turn our attention to the benghazi committee. these are their final report and we will talk to rachael bade of politico after that. ♪ then july 1, 19 76,
smithsonian national air and space museum opened its doors to the public with president gerald ford on hand for the dedication. friday is the 40th anniversary of the museum at american history tv's live coverage starts at 6:00 eastern on c-span3. we will to the museum and see artifacts, including this. a st. louis and the apollo lunar module. plus live events at the front of the building. learn more about the building as we learn -- speak to the director, begin director and the chair of the museum's space history department. you can join the conversation. we will be taking your phone call, e-mails and tweets. the 40th anniversary, live friday evening beginning at six clark eastern on c-span3's american history tv. i am pleased that this body has come to this conclusion. television and the senate will
undoubtedly provide citizens and exposureaccess to actions of this body. this access will help all -- betterto be go informed on the problems and issues that face this nation on a day by day basis. >> during the election, i had the occasion a meeting a woman who is supported me in my campaign. she decided to come to shake my hand and take a photograph. a wonderful woman. she was not asking for anything and i was very grateful she took the time to come by. it was an unexceptional moment except the fact he was born in 1894. lewis, ans margaret african-american woman born in louisiana. born in the shadow of say what -- slavery, at a time with lynchings were commonplace. born at a time when
african-americans and women could not vote. >> took our country from the time of its founding until the mid-1980's to build up a billion,debt of $850 which was the size of the so-called stimulus package we came over here. we are talking about real borrowed money. >> 30 years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. washington journal continues. host: back at our table with rachael bade from politico to talk about this benghazi committee's report. it was released by the republicans. 800 pages. walk us through what was new from their previous seven investigations into what happened on september 11, 2012. guest: the number one democratic talking points coming out of this is that there is nothing
new. i would disagree with it. awould say the report details lot of things that did not happen here in washington while the attack was going on. basically, the ministration failed to come up with a rescue execute ao rescued -- rescue plan all americans are trapped in libya. hethat timeframe you think would see military assets on the way to help. no one ever deployed to benghazi. on formero rely pro-gadhafi forces to come help them. they did not know who was friend and who was photo. --foe. all these different libyan group said it pretty much wing it to get out of there. it's a good thing these forces came in because there were at least two more dozen diplomats they could've ended up dying. host: who is responsible for those decisions, or the lack of
action? guest: that's a great question. "go."a testified he said this is the former defense secretary. obama said go. from that decision which happened about an hour or so after the initial attack started, there was it conference call at 7:30 that night. maybe three or four hours into the attack with the decision to go did not peter out. if we do go, what kind of
ground and also the state department employees who were there were saying there is no protest. you look at the cia wire cable transfers, look at one of the things the committee got access to that no other committee looked at before were called real-time chats. the cia was talking to each other, classified messages. nobody mentioned anything about a protest. nothing about a video. what is interesting is a different cover one cable where -- and a cia official who wrote this investigative report of what was going on that day or the day after -- wrote protest by benghazi. they look at this cable and said this is where we got the notion there was some sort of video and protest in benghazi. apparently the analyst told the panel i made a mistake. obviously a protest in a few hours before the attack happened.
if they had talked to the people on the ground, it would've been clear that nothing like this happened. there are e-mails between ambassador right when on tv is that it was a video. what is she talking about? this is not what happened? what happened was they relied on this cia report and ran with it even though there was other intelligence saying it was a terrorist attack. host: go back to the conference call that night of september 11, 2012. secretary clinton was on the call as well. the go order had been given by the president and defense secretary. thepatrick kennedy, undersecretary of state is exposing reservations about how they go and when they go, who goes, what is secretary clinton saying? host: there is not -- guest: there is not a lot of details.
a lot of military officials were talking. there is no transcript. there are not many know somewhat she was chiming in. one of the big questions i have ifen the readings report is the u.s. government said go, a top official, why were they following up? why were we asking where are we in this situation? -- thethe top vice-chairman chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was at a dinner party even know he knew about the attack. it just seems like everybody was sort of scattered and there was no real cohesive effort to come together and watch as this happened, what what we're doing -- watch what we are to get people out of harms way. the military in the administration often say we could've gotten there anyway. the report does not contradict that. ,f they sent assets right away
logistically it would've been tough to get there before the left -- last person died that night. the military did not know this would end at 5:00 in the morning libya time. you think that not knowing when the attack would and -- end, they would be on their way. host: before we get the phone calls, i would to show the viewers the chair of the benghazi committee during the news conference this week. they mentioned they were responsible in finding out the timeline, investigating what happened. issaid when he was asked secretary clinton at fault? he said that was not part of what this committee was designed to do. when you look at the resolution it says "accountability for policies and decisions related to security of facilities in the, libya and the response to the attacks on including individuals and entities responsible for those policies and decisions."
was the question never answered, who was responsible for the death of four americans? guest: he said read the report, read the report. there is no section that concludes such and such a person was at fault and such and such a person is to be fired or let go from the state department or from dod. there is not a section like this. it is interesting because two of , both art anders conservatives, felt the report did not go far enough to do that. they put out their own report and blasted secretary clinton, blasted president obama, saying they misled the public and did not move heaven and earth to save americans. because iesting interviewed him before. he has gotten so much criticism. people say he's running a partisan investigation.
he said he's a formal part of the -- federal prosecutor and it upsets him and he is been very sensitive to the point that this report does not go that extra step to say she is accountable or he is accountable or who is accountable. i do think we will see some conservatives not happy about that and that started with two people on the panel felt the need to go further. host: laura in pennsylvania, republican. are you there? caller: yes. good morning. i think this report should really concern every american who is thinking about voting for hillary. there was ay knew terror attack and told the egyptian leader it was a terrorist attack, told her own daughter chelsea it was, and then sent the people out herself ally -- to lie. ,hen the coffins were there
that disqualifies her from being the president. she lied. she knew it was that and decided to pull this charade over the american people. people like "the view," they have been going through benghazi and there's nothing there. i guess it wasn't their kid that was there in an hillary lighted them they would be more concerned. host: did the committee find out why she said one thing to egyptian leaders behind closed doors and said something to it the public? guest: they did not draw conclusions as to why. the conservatives said she misled for political reasons. they didn't want to say it was a terrorist attack. the report does not go that far. what the color is your firm to is a set of e-mails they cannot in her hearing -- that came out in her hearing.
this was back in october. basically this notion that she put out a statement that night saying we can test this sort of violence. blaming the video. and she wrote an e-mail to her daughter saying something along the lines that we know americans were killed by al qaeda and al qaeda affiliates. the next day he wrote an e-mail to the egyptian prime minister that said we know it was a protest, it wasn't a video, it was a planned terrorist attack. meanwhile the of people going on tv talking about this video. the report does not specifically call her out to say she lied. sort of lays this out and shows the two narratives competing at the time. host: what does the cia tell this committee when they talk about why that was put out there for people in the administration to say. that it was the video.
was there any indication this was classified of to a certain point about who did it? guest: it didn't seem to be classified. the if it was, administration has access to this sort of information. they all of the top-secret clearances. putting at a narrative that goes against the classified thing, maybe they wouldn't answer questions about it yet until they know more and set of blaming on this video. the analysts on the ground said -- they said nothing about a video or protests. there was that one cable that messes up benghazi in cairo on the protest. the administration says that is what they ran with. some of the top cia officials told the panel something that he pretty much right away, that this was terrorism and not a protest. host: melvin from fort lauderdale, florida. good morning.
caller: good morning. let me try to clarify a couple of things. the cia did not know exactly what happened. neither did anyone in the white house. there is ongoing fighting. it's only commentators watching a football game giving details about what is going on. i am taking that from experience. i was in charge of swat teams for years. number one, that cannot happen. the part of changing uniforms had nothing to do with it. they could've changed on the plane. that was some talk they put out there. with respect to the video, dealing information they had about people attacking was the video. captured --son they
a terrorist attack doesn't mean he came from this video itself. the sister of the ambassador said she doesn't blame hillary clinton because her brother knew what was going on. he should've taken into consideration. the movie shows when they went over there was not enough security and they knew that. host: they want to take your point for rachael bade. guest: i will start with the last thing. he mentioned there was a video. they're absolutely was. there was a anti-islamic video made in the u.s. the cia and state department new a couple of days before that -- this protest happened, they knew there was going to be a protest. it was interesting given that they found a lot of assets were not ready to deploy and they delivered via protest at the
embassy in egypt. they were supposed to be preparing for it. yes, they knew there was a video. clinton has testified they did not know if that had anything to do with what was going on in benghazi. the people on the ground said they felt there was nothing. they never saw any indication that what was going on had anything to do with what was going on in cairo. clinton argued that they knew this was going on in cairo and perhaps it was spreading elsewhere. we thought at first the issue was the video. he said the uniforms issue was for nothing. i wouldn't say it was for nothing. a lot of the reports focused on his uniform issue, changing in and out of uniform. state being worried about this notion that the u.s. military going right in and people taking this as a u.s. takeover of the the you -- of libya and the
libyans would get upset. they talked about drones being armed or not armed. apparently the u.s. military used to arm drones a circle of libya for intelligence, within the libyan government that we don't want you to do that. in the summer of 2012. there were no longer armed for this attack happened. there have been questions from the committee. what happened if they had been armed. the u.s. is taking into account diplomatic sensitivities in libya. that being said, the state department testified it would not admit a different if they changed in or out of the uniforms. they were still waiting for the aircraft to take them to libya. i want to update the viewers on something that looks like it happened a little after 9:00 a.m. this morning. andrew air force base twitting
the base is on lockdown due to a report of an active shooter. all personnel are directed to shelter in place. the lockdowning follows a report of this active shooter. the base was placed on lockdown just after 9:00 a.m.. it is the home of air force one and other emergency reaction units for the area around the nation's capital. personnel have been directed to shelter in place. we will find more information as we continue on this morning. mary in miami, democrat. questions or comments about benghazi investigation. caller: if there is something that is embarrassed me in my country, it is benghazi. we did noterstanding send help for seven hours while this attack was going on.
they received three standdown orders. three times they were told the standdown when they requested help. prior to the attack, a lot of the ambassador's request for help or denied or ignored. this seems to never get addressed. seven hours of the attack and no obama presidency spokesman, not hillary, not obama available to talk or do anything. host: i want to address those points. those often come up in conversations about what happened on september 11, 2012. standdown orders first. report -- there have been two theories about standdown orders. the first one being it would have happened in washington. there was an order given and somehow, someway somebody said wait a second. the other. the formere field,
military contractors who basically went and helped save people that night, a couple who end up dying themselves, they were told to stand down by the cia chief in benghazi. thefirst one obviously report found no evidence of a standdown order or when the wood -- we would be hearing about that today. what they did find was that obama said go, panetta said go and at some time between there and 7:30 the message got jumbled somehow. by 7:30 people were saying we are going to ready to deploy and basically suggesting there are going to wait for the final go when the secretary of defense said i issued the go but it was already given. there is some discrepancy on the
communication here in washington. in the field when this was happening, the actual guys, the commo -- contractors, they were told at least to wait. they were getting ready, getting things in their car, getting ready to drive to rescue american diplomats. they stood there for about 25 minutes after car -- at their car while the cia was trying to pull everyone the a more help. the cia officer said he never said standdown. he did say weight because he was trying to get more help from the libyan malicious that never came -- malitias that never came. depending on who you are talking to in this report, some people said they heard standdown that night. some people said it was weight. -- wait.
are we ever going to get the answer to that? if there was a standdown, people said it was not like -- it was more like wait a second, i'm trying get you more help. host: the standdown and is an official order? guest: in order that says don't move, as opposed to on trying to get you more help. point thathe second she brought up? guest: security requests. a lot of security requests were talked about in this report. apparently stephen summit e-mail to that morning. it must've been a joking e-mail saying i hope you don't get hit by a mortar today. he knew there were security problems in libya. any of the state department knew this. there have been a number of requests that were denied or ignored. he canceled a trip to libya that was scheduled in august for his actual trip in september.
what he was going there for with this desire. let's make this a permanent mission. he was working to make a permanent mission and benghazi. he wanted to establish connections so when she came that october they would be ready. host: who would have denied or ignored the request more security? guest: basically the head of diplomatic security personnel. i think the state department ended up putting a number of people on administrative leave that should have made these decisions. the report talked about how this decisions went higher. it talks about more about pat kennedy in his role to extend the mission in benghazi without the security requirements that all the other missions run the world of required to have. host: not as ties hillary clinton? howt: it says nothing about hillary clinton should have been punished.
and democrats, they report goes hard on this. there is no evidence to suggest clinton had a follow-up request for benghazi and denied it. host: an updated entries air force base. another tweet. this incident is ongoing. shutdown for a shoot out at the medical facility. all personnel continue to shelter in place. it is the latest message just moments ago from andrews air force base. josephine and livingston, new jersey. go ahead. caller: good morning. i was reading ambassador hit -- -- i thought it interesting how he made the comment. the only people i blame, not hillary, not the president, but congress and why congress? they dramatically cut the security for all the councils.
how do they stand of pontificating on their people who pay the bill? example ofhis as an what is happened in turkey. do you see how the information comes out? was two andnew it then three. you don't know information immediately. no one does. host: i want to have rachael bade address that. the ambassador sister? guest: that got a lot of headlines basically saying congress is making this a partisan issue. , familye other members members of people who talks to gowdy personally and what it were information on this. i do think there is a divide. really comes down to will
this report change much? i wrote a story last night about how this has become such a partisan issue. even if there are interesting things we can learn, this issue is so tense for everyone that people are not going to read it and just dismiss it and say this is a partisan issue. republicans will grab little things in the report and say clinton is the devil and she is 100% responsible for everything that happened even other report shows she is not. it was the whole administration failure. what is this report going to do? offer more details, but will it change much in washington? host: what is the price tag? democrats eight $7 million. guest: it's about $7 million. the committee tried to say it's also the democrats. presswas one point with a
release about bonuses on the democratic side. yes, is a very expensive price tag. i have not confirmed the bonuses thing on the other side. it could be partisan back-and-forth. response to the benghazi committee report from republicans. they put out a statement saying they excluded democrats from interviews, with help interview transcripts, late and accurate information, issued unilateral subpoenas, sent armed marshals to the home of a cooperative witness and even conducted political fundraising by exploiting the deaths of four americans. you can find a report on our website. frank in fort lauderdale? caller: how are you doing? watching.all of this one of the things -- i wasrated on living in washington, d.c. for several years at that time, when
the incident happened. that was the fact that susan rice went on the sunday talk shows and she described the video as the primary cause. it was picked up later on by other people. this is where i had my main problem with it. some of the stuff i don't know about and there is room for argument. i lived in miami -- host: we are running out of time. i want rachael bade to talk about what does the reports say about why she was the one that went on the sunday talk shows and how is it she said what she said? guest: the report does talk about that. it's unclear how and why she was determined and why they picked her. -- she did notly talk to the fbi or the cia or the defense department.
say had breached her to this is from a video, etc. the report blasts the fact that at this top state official goes on national tv without checking with the diplomats from the state department who are in the field who are e-mailing back and forth. she went off the deep end, what is she talking about, claiming a video that having you do with what happened. another report talks about how she said the fbi already had a lead and were investigating this. the report said the fbi had not done anything yet. they did not start the investigation until days later. they asked her in her testimony why did she say this, addressing this information. you are not even breached by the fbi. she meant towas,
say the fbi was taking the lead in investigating, not had a lead. there is still a lot of questions about how they responded. it's interesting to watch it play out. host: the committee was able to interview susan rice on this? guest: that is a fun story. part of a report that many people are not reporting on is the compliance section. it details how the back-and-forth between the administration, the state department, the cia, defense, and his committee. this is a republican-led committee and the obama administration does not to talk about this issue. how they got these interviews, these documents. there is an interesting part about the rice interview. -- one of thee top national security advisers did not want her to interview. of course we have to talk to them. they kept delaying and delaying. the committee would send letters and call them as this on the
books and they would not hear back. the committee in his report sent subpoena threats. apparently they dropped a lot to the white house. we are getting a subpoena written up, etc. in a few days the top legal counsel flew down to see trey gowdy north of his district. they were worried about subpoena getting out there and it went to negotiate right away and he was at home for recess. it's interesting how the subpoena threats really seems to help the committee. host: sam is watching in georgia. caller: i have a couple of questions. witchhunt costis the american people? host: sorry, i thought you were done. the figure is around $7 million. that has been confirmed? guest: probably a little more
than that when it is all said and done but yes. -- staff of former cia folks and fbi folks. former top military legal -- the advisor for one of the branches of military is there. probablyexpensive -- $170,000 a year. it is an expensive investigation. liz? question or comment? caller: clearly this is a partisan issue, as evidenced by your callers this morning. i'm not sure what universe they live in but the outright call someone a lie. your husband says he has cancer, is a terminal? we don't know.
i'm not it's all 13-year-old his father is going to die. i mean, 21-year-old. sure, we have all the skew mitigation. it may be very quick but you have to rely on people on the scene to communicate information to your. as far as finding, congress was the one who decides on funding. i may need other person on my team, more supplies. it is not in the budget, i'm not getting it. tryingole thing is about to assign blame and make something sinister. wanting someone to die is just ridiculous. host: rachael bade? guest: the last one she made about anybody wanting anyone to die, i think that is incredibly sinister and no were near anything like that in this investigation. people on the ground to find what happened, it is clear that
at first they did not. it would make sense. not much else to add. host: charlie, independent? caller: the military-industrial complex needs to get out of the middle east. it is there for offense and empire. we should start focusing on things that are killing americans everyday. elective single-payer health care. -- the lack of single-payer health care. caller: my comment has to do with the -- did your speakers -- that there were unarmed drones in the area? host: we have not talked about that yet. is that something that stuck out to you when you were listening to the news conference the other day? caller: i'm just saying if there were unarmed drones and they had video of the incident, wouldn't
they realize immediately there was no video taken of the actual event? how did they come up with a claim? host: we have got to clarify a couple of things. let's talk about the video. they are not referring to a video of the attack in libya. referring to arab spring videos in tunisia and other places. and that spurred protests in libya they got out of control, that turned out to be false? guest: yes, they do have video of the attack from these drones. it sounds like they are classified right now and the committee is trying to get into the classified as videos so if can see what happened when the mortar hit in the gunfire was going on. they were not armed. the report talks about this a little bit.
basically it says that the libyan government said we don't want you to be flying around libya with armed drones. they went through any permission to have armed drones in the summer of 2012. the drugs that were there were not armed. -- the committee has asked it did someone to talk to people if they were armed, could that have made much of a difference? it's unclear if it would have made much of a difference. i would assume if ever protests, they would see it on the video. it is hard to tell how well that -- ofof always having what was happening was how clear it was. still a lot of unanswered questions. host: how was to victoria in oregon, a democrat. caller: i'm curious as to how the scope, the depth, the length
of time of this investigation compares the things like the embassy attack in beirut were 200 marines were killed, the uss cole, other major terrorist attacks. those with no other embassy attacks of also have these things -- the state department to being good t -- convened its own investigation. they did way back when this first happened. nothing like the scope of the benghazi committee. i think the benghazi investigation is sort of unprecedented. and putting together a slight committee after multiple committees have artie looked at this. the committees before had only looked at slivers of each piece. they looked at the state department or the military or at the cia. this was the first to look at everything sequentially and put together this narrative. i do think it's
a precedent. host: guest: great question. .let's ask him that you and i have discussed that it is not my job to ascribe blame. you read the house resolution that says talk about who is responsible. personally, having interviewed him a lot over the past couple of years, my theory is that he has been affected by all the criticism. he specifically deny not want the committee to seem like they were doing a hack job on the administration. they put out the events they found without conclusions on who should be garry, welcome to the
conversation. caller: i would like to see you glossed over something by calling a partisan. i was wondering about the fact that congress had totally defunded a lot of the money that was going to the state department. and one other thing. you have a magnificent knows -- nose. host: security at these embassies and funding for them from congress? guest: congress the funding. i think money for security from congress obviously has the power of the purse. that's a great point in with the democrats have wrought up before. -- brought up before. us, theyo bat for could have asked us, etc. that has been some reports state was pinching pennies on security issues and that might have been why something like
this, and a very dangerous part of the country did not have security. should they have prioritized somehow? absolutely. yes, congress has the power of the purse and maybe stay should have been more adamant about people that need protection. host: james in georgia, republican? screener,ke a soldier a lot of these democrats are suddenly grasping at straws. the politically motivated deception that they knew was a deception was the worst thing of all. anybody can make security mistakes. she did have 600 request to increase security and she claims that none of them made it to her desk. in mys a little strange mind.
and then they trotted out ambassador rice and did all the morning news shows to be are un-american version of baghdad bob in a skirt. it was cia all the way up and down. host: deception? guest: one of the things he mentioned was none of these made it to her desk. suggesting how to the security or pests -- requests not admitted to her desk? that there are people at the state department, it's a huge bureaucracy, they deal with security matters. it sounds like the requests went there. there have been some e-mails was in onat clinton some sort of afghan mission security issues. it's not like he had not been looped in on security issues before.
any obviously didn't find suggestion that she or any evidence that she knew about the security problems in libya or the deterioration of the country that followed the fall of gaddafi. deception, clinton has said numerous times that they were not sure. they thought maybe it was a video. that is about as much is regarded get from that. host: in the closing minutes, andrews air force base continues to be on lockdown. there is no new information for what we told you earlier. this is a tweet they sent out after 9:00 this morning. all personnel are directed to shelter in place, that is what they had to say. i think that continues to be the case. they continued on with a second tweet saying it was ongoing and first responders are on the scene there at air force -- anderson air force base.
guest: you with this story in october 2015. reaction from gowdy when this happened and what did kevin mccarthy have to say in his investigation? guest: it totally hurt the investigation and gowdy was ticked. there are different reasons you can do oversight. you can do to make someone look bad. which is what mccarthy was saying. you can do it to try to figure out what happened, and you can try to do it to recommend at stopping for happening again like that in the future. book are they going on tv and , itng we made this panel absolutely hurt the panel. following that there were tons of democratic press releases.
i can't tell you how many a day i got blasting mccarthy. we told you on the lawn this is partisan. he just confirmed it. off. was ticked i think that started a wave of criticism on the panel. in the weeks leading up to hillary clinton's testimony, which did not go as well as it could have for republicans, that was a really dark time for gowdy. one of the ease i did with him was a couple of days before the hearing. he normally jokes around and is pretty quick with silly things to say. his wife is making and watch hallmark movies or something like that, but you can just tell it was totally drained. i am so frustrated. it definitely changed the coverage of the panel and the perceptions of the panel and it lasting damage.
host: george in maryland, a republican. make it quick. theer: aan executive, main resource you have is time and where you spend your time. a lot of comments was that clinton did not know about this. my question is, to the report talk about how much time clinton spent on security versus other issues that she had been executive of the department of state? you are responsible for everything that goes on. was she spent enough time on security versus other issues? suggestsport basically and does not draw a direct line but suggests she had a different sort of priorities, such as being able to say look at us, we established a connection with libya. the report suggests that she had more politics on her mind than something like that. it does not say that blatantly. politics,vative size
even during theout a rescue plao deploy assets to benghazi to get people out. the added them that was not part of the report and i'm sure the democrats would respond thatlinton would respond she has a lot of issues to deal with, all these different countries and political matters and that she cannot be in the weeds on everything. host: if you want to follow rachel bates, you can go to politico.com. that does it today's washington journal. you over to the senate small business and entrepreneurial committee for a hearing on flood insurance rates in this country.